What if much that you think you know about agriculture, farming and food isn't actually true? What if there are "myths" that have been intentionally and mostly unintentionally spread about these issues? What if the truth about these issues matters for the future of humanity? That is what this blog is about.
If you are interested in learning more about my business as a public speaker, please visit my website, drstevesavage.com.

To follow by Email (RSS Feed)

Thursday, December 15, 2011

An argument frequently made by the opponents of plant genetic engineering is that there have been no long-term, independent studies about the safety of GMO (genetically modified organisms) crops. Actually, there has been quite a lot of research on that question and it supports the safety of the technology. A major new review on the question of long-term feeding effects of GMO crops is about to be published. It was written by a group of seven European scientists from the public sector, and will appear in the Journal: Food and Chemical Toxicology. The authors examined a large body of peer reviewed, scientific studies on the topic and identified 12 long-term feeding studies (longer than the typical 90 days and up to two years) and 12 multigenerational studies (2 to 5 generations). They reviewed all of these papers in detail and came to the following conclusion:

"Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance."

OK, this is "science-speak" for "we really didn't find anything to be concerned about."

Reasons To Take This Paper Seriously

The authors are independent academic and public sector scientists

The studies they reviewed are all by independent, publicly funded, academic groups

The studies looked at many different crops (maize, rice, soybeans, triticale, potato)

So even though one can never "prove a negative," this sort of extensive scholarship must be taken seriously. What has NOT been found means quite a bit.

The authors also provided a useful critique of these independent studies. In many cases the GMO and non-GMO feeds were not from near isogenic lines, sometimes the event was unspecified, and in some cases the crops were grown under different conditions. All of this can lead to differences that cannot be clearly attributed to whether the crop was GMO or not. The downside of independent testing of this type is that potentially misleading results can emerge and cloud the discussion.

Why Does This Matter?

It matters because 16 years into the commercialization of GMO crops, controversy persists. To date, most of the commercial GMO crops are ones that are either used for animal feed or are the source of refined ingredients in human foods. They have not, for the most part, been crops that people eat "whole." That barrier may need to be broken as one component of efforts to feed humanity over the next several decades. There are three immensely important food crops which are not now GMO on a commercial scale: wheat, rice, and potatoes. That may change in the next several years.

Recently, China has begun pre-commercialization trials with an insect-protected GMO rice. GMO wheat, rice and potatoes will not feed the world - but they could contribute significantly to that effort. The question of whether to commercialize these GMO versions of these crops is going to be on the table in the not too distant future. Regulators, food companies and consumers are going to have to wrestle with the issue. Careful studies like this one will help to make that a better informed discussion.

Wheat image by Dag Endresen
You are invited to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com.

Friday, December 9, 2011

(This post originally appeared on Sustainablog on 12/9/11)
Yesterday the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released it's monthly index of global food prices. When the current price spike is compared with the one that occurred in 2007/8, the striking difference is the persistence of relatively high prices. Rather than falling rapidly as in 2008, this "spike" is only showing a modest decline 23 months into the cycle (see chart above). One UN economist is quoted as saying that prices are "stabilizing at high levels." Back in October I thought it would take until January to know if this spike was actually different. Now it seems clear that it is.

Cereal prices were down marginally (see chart above) and following a record harvest there is hope that they will ease further in coming months. Meat prices, which have risen far further in this spike than in the last, show no real sign of decline (see chart below)

The dairy index dropped slightly, but the index for fats and oils actually increased.
These prices are most relevant for nations which are largely dependent on food imports. Unfortunately this month's report is not encouraging for the world's poor.

What in the world is "applied mythology?"

I've been involved in agricultural technology for more than 30 years. I was originally trained as a plant pathologist but my career has taken me into many other disciplines and touched on many different crops and geographies. I'm married, have three grown kids and one grand daughter. I like to garden, and play guitar.

I'm passionate about meeting the challenge of feeding 9-10 billion people without destroying the environments. I believe that technology is a big part of how we will do that and I am deeply concerned about the increasingly anti-science environment in which we live today. I've been blogging now for more than 5 years and increasingly doing public speaking on this topic. My speaker website is www.drstevesavage.com